Great points, Adam. I disagree with this one feature being excluded but I do agree that just because something is in the userland doesn't necessarily mean it should be in the core-- making my point rather moot.
Cheers. On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Adam Harvey <ahar...@php.net> wrote: > On 10 January 2013 10:05, Tyler Sommer <somme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Annotations are already a part of PHP. They are widely used in one of the > > most prolific frameworks, Symfony, and it's ORM "counterpart" Doctrine. > > To explain what I meant by "PHP", since I think we're arguing > semantics there: I mean php-src specifically, rather than the broader > userland community, since we're on Internals. > > > To say "they shouldn't be part of PHP" is fine, but it's too late for > that. > > Annotations are already here. Are we going to just ignore this fact and > hold > > back what a very significant portion of the community wants to see > because > > it conflicts with some ambiguous master plan for PHP? > > I don't have a master plan (that would be the part of this thread I'm > not touching), but if it's a poorly thought out feature, sure. Pretty > much every major project out there uses a unit testing framework and > ORM: does that mean we should also be including equivalents for > PHPUnit and Doctrine in core? > > Basically, I think the trend towards configuration as behaviour is an > antipattern that results in less readable, harder to debug code. > Having said that, the beauty of our userland being a set of > communities is that each community can make their own decisions — > since the good folks behind Doctrine have written an excellent > annotation parser, those who want to go that way can, but it doesn't > mean PHP has to go out of its way to encourage it. > > Or, to put it another way, not everything has to be a language > feature. That way lies Perl. > > Adam >
